Somasundaram, J.-This is a reference by the District Magistrate (Judicial) of South Arcot. The reference is made under the following circumstances. On 31st December, 1955, at about 10-30 p.m. there was a prohibition raid in a place called Vinayagapuram, hamlet of Adanur village in South Arcot district. The raid was conducted by the Head Constable of Thambur outpost with the aid of two constables and two mahazar witnesses. The accused was caught red-handed while distilling arrack. M. Os. 1 to 7 were seized. They included utensils and other vessels used for distilling arrack and fermented wash. The accused was also arrested and sent to the Sub-Inspector of Police at Kanjanoor within whose limits the offence took place with a special report by the Head Constable who conducted the raid. The Head Constable at Kanjanoor police station who received the accused as also the report and the material objects seized during the raid from the Head Constable of Thambur, registered a case in Crime No. 1 of 1956 under section 4(1)(b) of the Madras Prohibition Act and investigated the case. The Sub-Inspector of Police supervised investigation and filed a charge-sheet. The case was taken on file by the Sub-Magistrate at Gingee as C. C. No. 201 of 1956 for an offence under section 4(1)(b) of the Madras Prohibition Act. Thereafter the accused was tried and convicted and sentenced to three months’ rigorous imprisonment. The accused preferred an appeal against his conviction and sentence to the Assistant Sessions Judge (District Magistrate), South Arcot. In the appeal several grounds of fact and law were taken. One of the points of law raised was that the trial Court erred in following the procedure prescribed in section 251-A of the Criminal Procedure Code and that the correct procedure to be followed as regards cases under the Madras Prohibition Act is the one laid down in section 252 of the Criminal Procedure Code. This argument was based on the construction of section 48 of the Madras Prohibition Act which runs as follows:

“When a police or prohibition officer forwards in custody any person accused of an offence under this Act to the Magistrate having jurisdiction to inquire into or try the case, or admits any such person to bail to appear before such Magistrate, such officer shall also forward to such Magistrate a report setting forth the name of the accused person and the nature of the offence with which he is charged and the names of the persons who appear to be acquainted with the circumstances of the case, and shall send to such Magistrate any article which it may be necessary to produce before him. Upon receipt of such report the Magistrate shall enquire into such offence and try the person accused thereof in like manner as if complaint had been made before him as prescribed in the Code of Criminal Procedure” .

The section authorises the Police Officer or the Prohibition Officer to forward to the Magistrate a report who on receipt of such a report is to deal with the matter as if a complaint had been made before him as prescribed in the Code of Criminal Procedure. Complaint is defined in sub-clause (h) of section 4 of the Criminal Procedure Code. It is as follows:

“Complaint means the allegation made orally or in writing to a Magistrate, with a view to his taking action under this Code, that some person whether known or unknown has committed an offence but it does not include the report of a Police Officer” .

It would be seen from the above definition that it does not include the report of a police officer. It was, therefore, contended that the report of the police officer referred to in section 48 of the Prohibition Act is not a charge-sheet filed under section 173 of the Criminal Procedure Code but is treated as a complaint. If that is so, then the procedure to be followed by the Magistrate is the one prescribed in section 252 and not the one laid down in section 251-A of the Criminal Procedure Code and that section 251-A will apply only to r

Click Here to Read the rest of this document